Vomiting is a common symptom that most people experience from time to time. It can occur due to various reasons, such as food poisoning, stomach flu, motion sickness, or excessive alcohol consumption. While vomiting is often not a cause for concern, there are certain signs that may indicate a more serious underlying condition. These signs can help determine whether the vomiting requires immediate medical attention. One sign of a severe vomiting episode is the presence of blood in the vomit. This can appear as either fresh red blood or as dark and grainy material, resembling coffee grounds.
From the mid-1970s until the Angels won the World Series in 2002, frequent stories of an Angels “curse” or “jinx” appeared in the local and national media. Typically blamed on a rumor that Anaheim Stadium was built on a Native American burial ground, the curse persists to the present day despite the fact that several of the victims of the curse pre-dated the move to Anaheim in 1966.
Typically blamed on a rumor that Anaheim Stadium was built on a Native American burial ground, the curse persists to the present day despite the fact that several of the victims of the curse pre-dated the move to Anaheim in 1966. Many curse-related articles, starting with Dick Miller s The Sporting News obituary of Mike Miley see below , have reported that Rojas was paralyzed in a car crash in 1968; however, he appeared in 12 Triple-A games in 1969.
This can appear as either fresh red blood or as dark and grainy material, resembling coffee grounds. Blood in the vomit may indicate bleeding in the gastrointestinal tract, which can be caused by ulcers, tumors, or other digestive disorders. Another concerning sign is the persistent nature of the vomiting.
The President Cries “Witch Hunt,” but Ignores Surveillance Reform
Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference has polarized the surveillance debate along unpredictable lines. On the one side, Trump and his defenders decry the Mueller probe as a “witch hunt” concocted by intelligence community liberals to derail his presidency. On the other, Trump’s progressive critics defend the institutions of the surveillance state—embracing the FBI, the NSA, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as unblemished defenders of American democracy.
The treatment of surveillance oversight as a political football is not an altogether new phenomenon. Usually, however, it’s the opposition party that criticizes the surveillance powers invested in the executive branch; not the other way around. It’s a particular oddity of our odd era that we find Democrats defending the unfettered power of Trump’s own spy agencies, while Republicans in the White House decry the “deep state.”
What neither of these camps appear interested in doing, however, is having a frank discussion about the proper limits of surveillance. If Republicans really believe the FISA process is vulnerable to partisan manipulation, why not support reforms to improve oversight of that process? And likewise, if Democrats believe Trump is a dangerous demagogue, why blindly trust the very agencies with which he could do the most damage?
The partisan fracture in Washington over surveillance oversight has split wide open over the past few weeks. On Wednesday, March 28, the Justice Department announced that its inspector general will be looking into the FBI’s surveillance of Carter Page, an oil and gas analyst who worked for the Trump campaign. The review was triggered by a memo released in February by Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Nunes says the surveillance of Page is evidence of politically motivated abuse. In a rebuttal memo, Democrats defend the surveillance.
The result of the dueling memos was embarrassment for Nunes. The central claim of the Nunes memo was that government lawyers had misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court about the bias of an important source: Christopher Steele, a former British spy hired by the Democrats to get information about Trump’s Russia connections. In fact, the filing had specifically warned the judges that the FBI believed its source had a political motivation.
A recurring complaint about the intelligence committees is that they place blind trust in the agencies they oversee. The remedy for blind trust, however, is not blind mistrust: it is healthy skepticism and support for surveillance reform. In the Atlantic, Amy Zegart argues that Nunes has invented something even worse than “fake news”—“fake oversight.” According to Zegart, Nunes had abused his oversight power to create a “swirl of doubt” about the good faith of intelligence officials, with results that are “toxic to the democratic process and dangerous to national security.”
Three critics of President Trump—Norm Eisen, Larry Tribe, and Caroline Frederickson—have even suggested that Nunes’s oversight constitutes a “conspiracy to obstruct justice.” Eisen is a Brookings Institution scholar and a leading advocate of ethics in government; Tribe is a legendary scholar of constitutional law; and Frederickson was a director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union when I worked there. The world has clearly gone gone upside down when celebrated civil libertarians like Eisen, Tribe, and Frederickson suggest that the head of the committee Congress has established to question the intelligence agencies should be jailed for, well, questioning the intelligence agencies.
Former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa argues that liberals have only themselves to blame for the president’s “witch hunt” narrative. It was progressives, she says, who “laid the groundwork for the Nunes memo” with their unfair attacks on the system for approving surveillance warrants for those suspected of collusion with foreign governments.
According to Rangappa, progressives had dismissed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as nothing more than a “rubber stump”—not just because the FISA system was flawed, but because government officials couldn’t be trusted. Liberal critics had convinced the broader public that FBI agents “routinely lie to the court and that judges can’t be trusted to do their job.” Was it any surprise when Trump picked up the narrative and ran with it?
Sign up for updates.
Blaming progressives for the Nunes memo—and, by extension, for the whole “deep state” attack on the Russia investigation—completely misunderstands the civil libertarian critique of the surveillance state. I agree that progressives have sometimes unfairly characterized the FISA court. It is no rubber stamp: the judges take their role quite seriously. Yet the progressive critique of the FISA court—and of surveillance oversight more generally—has been structural, not personal.
In 2013, Edward Snowden revealed programs of mass surveillance by the NSA, sparking a global conversation about privacy. Snowden and his supporters certainly used some heated rhetoric about a mass surveillance state. Still, the main goal of civil libertarians has been to fix a broken surveillance system, not to undermine legitimate intelligence gathering on foreign threats.
Among other proposals, progressives pushed President Obama for a special advocate for privacy in the FISA system. Obama agreed, saying he thought government lawyers should be “challenged by an adversary.” A special advocate could have asked tough questions about the Page warrant application, including its reliance on the Steele dossier.
Congress passed a version of the special advocate proposal in the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, reforming government surveillance. Despite this, the FISA court appears to have heard only from the government in the Page case. The reason is because conservatives succeeded in weakening this reform.
During the debate on the Freedom Act, Judge John D. Bates—who had previously served as the chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court—strongly objected to an adversarial process. The conservative judge, writing on behalf of the judiciary, wrote that an advocate would be counterproductive “in the vast majority of FISA matters.” Bates said there was no need for an advocate for cases that involve the application of probable cause to “case-specific facts.”
Congress modified the special advocate proposal to meet these objections. Under the compromise, outside lawyers are appointed only if, “in the opinion of the court,” there is a “novel or significant” legal question presented. As the Carter Page warrant application appears to have been a pretty straightforward application of probable cause to particular facts, it would not have been a good candidate for an outside lawyer.
If Devin Nunes and other Trump supporters truly believe there has been abuse, they would offer ideas for strengthening the special advocate and other surveillance reforms, not personal attacks on intelligence officials and other public servants. I’m not holding my breath. At least so far, it appears that Nunes’s wild charges are nothing more than a cynical ploy to distract public attention from the Russia investigation.
If conservatives want an honest and thorough conversation about the vulnerability of the FISA process to political manipulation, let’s have it. I welcome Nunes and company to throw their support behind reforms—like a strengthened special advocate position—which would mitigate such abuses in the future. Indeed, if they’re sincere in their criticisms, failing to do so is an abdication of their oversight role.
The purpose of government oversight of the intelligence community is not the shielding of any particular individual from undue scrutiny, but the protection of every potential target’s civil liberties.
If a person is unable to keep any food or liquids down for more than 24 hours, it may indicate a more serious issue. Prolonged vomiting can lead to dehydration, which requires medical intervention to restore fluids and electrolytes balance. Severe abdominal pain accompanying vomiting can also be a sign of a more serious condition. This can be indicative of an intestinal obstruction or inflammation of the pancreas or appendix. Additionally, if the vomiting is accompanied by symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, confusion, or stiff neck, it may suggest a potentially life-threatening condition, such as meningitis or encephalitis. Another concerning sign is unexplained weight loss despite regular food intake. If a person is experiencing persistent vomiting and unintentional weight loss, it may indicate a chronic condition, such as an eating disorder or cancer. Frequent vomiting can also lead to damage to the teeth and mouth due to exposure to stomach acids, causing enamel erosion and tooth decay. In conclusion, while occasional vomiting is usually not a cause for concern, certain signs may indicate a more serious underlying condition. These signs include the presence of blood in the vomit, persistent vomiting, severe abdominal pain, accompanying symptoms such as fever or confusion, unexplained weight loss, and dental damage. If any of these signs are present, it is important to seek medical attention for a proper evaluation and treatment..
Reviews for "Is Your Relationship Toxic? Look for These Warning Signs"
1. Name: Jenna
Rating: 2/5
Review: I was really disappointed with "Signs of a Curse". The story felt very predictable and the characters were one-dimensional. The plot had promising potential, but it fell flat due to the lackluster writing. I also found the pacing to be extremely slow, making it hard for me to stay engaged. Overall, I wouldn't recommend this book unless you're a fan of cliché and uninteresting paranormal stories.
2. Name: Michael
Rating: 1/5
Review: I found "Signs of a Curse" to be a complete waste of time. The concept was interesting, but the execution was poor. The writing was full of clichés and the dialogue felt forced. The characters lacked depth and I couldn't connect with any of them. The plot was also predictable and offered no surprises. I was hoping for a gripping and suspenseful read, but I was left feeling bored and unsatisfied. Save your money and skip this one.
3. Name: Sarah
Rating: 2/5
Review: I struggled to finish "Signs of a Curse". The story had potential, but it lacked proper development. The characters felt underdeveloped and their actions often seemed unrealistic. Additionally, the plot seemed to drag on without any clear direction. The writing style was also quite mediocre, failing to capture my attention. Overall, I was left feeling disappointed and unsatisfied with this novel. There are definitely better paranormal thrillers out there.
4. Name: David
Rating: 2/5
Review: "Signs of a Curse" had an intriguing premise, but it didn't deliver on its promise. The plot felt disjointed and lacked clarity, making it difficult to follow. The characters were also poorly developed, and their motivations and actions felt inconsistent throughout the story. The writing style didn't engage me and there were several grammatical errors that were distracting. I was hoping for a gripping supernatural suspense, but unfortunately, this book missed the mark for me.
5. Name: Emma
Rating: 2/5
Review: "Signs of a Curse" was a disappointment for me. The story had the potential to be engaging, but the execution fell short. The pacing was slow, and I found it hard to stay invested in the plot. The characters were forgettable and lacked depth, making it difficult to care about their fates. The writing style was also lackluster, lacking the necessary atmosphere and tension for a paranormal thriller. Overall, I found this book to be mediocre at best.